Saudi citizen Homaidan Al-Turki and his wife arrive at the Arapahoe County courthouse on May 12, 2006. Al-Turki has sued the state of Colorado, Arapahoe County prosecutors and the FBI in federal court claiming they defamed him by falsely saying he sexually assaulted his maid and had ties to a terrorist. (Ed Andrieski, Associated Press file)

Your editorial expresses indignation that a man sentenced to a term of eight years to life would fight for his freedom. Nothing could be more American or, indeed, more human.

Homaidan Al-Turki, 46, suffers from diabetes, has a wife, a son and four daughters, and transfer to his home country was justified on humanitarian grounds. Al-Turki’s recently filed lawsuit seeks a hearing in court so he can clear his name of ties to terrorism and prove he is not, nor has he ever been, a threat to national security. It was the false allegations of terrorism by overzealous prosecutors and FBI agents that blocked his transfer to a prison in Saudi Arabia where he would have served out the remainder of his sentence under a treaty between the United States and Saudi Arabia. It was not, as you claim in your editorial, “that he and the Saudi government had portrayed his trial as a manifestation of anti-Islamic sentiment rather than an exercise in justice.”

Time and again you’ve presented only the prosecution’s point of view. You have never made an effort to understand the missteps, the anomalies, and governmental misconduct that have unfairly devastated Al-Turki’s life and reputation.

Our lawsuit amounts to a challenge to those who’ve made ruinous charges of terrorism against Al-Turki and floated innuendos about his involvement in the killing of prison executive Tom Clements. In sum: put up or shut up. We believe that is the American way.

Faisal Salahuddin,Denver

The writer is an attorney for the Frank & Salahuddin law firm, which filed the recent lawsuit on Al-Turki’s behalf.

This letter was published in the March 23 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Matt Chandler’s criticism of the 47 U.S. senators who sent a public letter to Iran’s leadership misses the point. I believe this letter was meant as much for our president as anyone else, a reminder that executive action does not a treaty make.

Stating that the United States will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran is meaningless, as we have no way of verifying compliance of any negotiated terms. Internationally backed inspectors have been allowed to see only what Iran’s leadership wants them to see. In the past, they have been routinely expelled once they begin to get too close to the truth.

Short of engaging in military action, sanctions are our best bet for influencing Iran’s behavior. Unfortunately, the effective sanctions that brought Iran back to the negotiating table have now been relaxed or removed, allowing time for Iran to further its ambitions.

It is alarming that an ex-official of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security [Chandler is a former deputy chief of staff for the agency] would have such a naive view of this dangerous, terrorist-sponsoring country.

David Oyler,New Castle

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

Re: “The true liability of the Iran letter,” March 12 editorial.

The Denver Post editorial on the liability of the Iran letter misses the most important point. The outrage does not, as the editorial implies, stem from objections to senators voicing criticism. It is in reaction to one party’s senators going behind the back of the executive branch, which is empowered with negotiating international treaties and agreements, to pursue their own opposing policy and partisan goals. It’s the same as if senators had sought to interfere in Kennedy’s negotiations with Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis.

The notion that this initiative couldn’t really blow up the talks is offered as a mitigating factor, but blowing up the talks is the stated goal, attainable or not, of the letter’s creator, Sen. Tom Cotton. That the letter does not technically constitute treason makes the signers no less reckless or fundamentally disloyal.

Regardless of whether U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner signed some letter, or the letter’s contents, or to whom it was sent, the real issue here is a fundamental distrust many Americans have for President Obama putting our country’s interests as his top priority. From his apology tour after being first elected, to the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq after he withdrew U.S. troops, Obama has shown a real devil-may-care attitude for putting the naivete of his ideology and desire for checking off items from his presidential “legacy list” over all else. So is it any wonder that so many people distrust him from keeping Iran, the very country whose leadership refers to the United States as the Great Satan, from obtaining nuclear weapons, weapons that will almost certainly be used against us one day?

Douglas Fleecs,Greeley

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

One basic fact that seems to be overlooked in the controversy over the GOP letter to Iran is that the nuclear negotiations do not simply involve negotiations between the U.S. and Iran — they also include the British, French, Russians and Chinese, with the support of Germany. If the U.S. were to fail to support any possible agreement, it would seriously undermine our credibility with the rest of the world, regardless of who is president. Further, the effect of any U.S. sanctions could become seriously compromised.

Vic Viola,Golden

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

I am very concerned about the open letter to Iran. I don’t blame only the Republicans or the Democrats for this situation, I blame them both. It seems that both the Democrats and Republicans are more concerned with gaining votes for their party than governing. Criticizing the policies of the other party has always been a tactic for gaining votes, but this has gradually gotten worse. We now have gridlock in Congress and reversing anything accomplished by the other party seems to be their highest priority. In the past they kept party politics out of matters of national security and foreign policy. Even those situations are no longer off limits and our elected officials don’t seem to appreciate the danger.

We need an alternative to our current two-party system, because we can’t go on like this for long. Politics should be a means to elect good leaders, not a game where gaining the most votes is the goal. Good government is the goal.

Doug Powell,Loveland

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Colorado’s U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet (left) and Cory Gardner introduced legislation recently that would force lawmakers remain at the Capitol to prevent the shutdown of government agencies. (Associated Press and Getty file photos)

I thought April 1st had creeped up on me when I read the top story on the front page of the March 12 Denver Post. But, sadly, it was not an April Fool’s joke.

Upon reading that Sens. Michael Bennet and Cory Gardner have actually “been working on the legislation for months,” ostensibly to ensure senators do what they were elected to do anyway, I’m left pondering if they think they were elected to become the self-appointed, de facto Senate truancy officers. It’s difficult to believe that they have spent so much time on this while so many important domestic issues remain unresolved.

Ensuring a quorum so critical issues can be debated and voted on is surely important. But rather than working to “get colleagues on board” with their superfluous legislation, perhaps Sens. Bennet and Gardner could attempt to convince their fellow senators to undertake more of a statesman-like behavior, where integrity and impartial concern for the public good is the intrinsic motivation for addressing our nation’s pressing issues.

One might think that such an effort would be more constructive than spending their valuable time on “Shame on you! You missed class!” legislation.

Gary Garrison,Ward

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Colorado is rightly forcing insurance companies to cease and desist selling inadequate policies, effectively solving a gigantic problem that had been getting progressively worse for many years prior to the fixes mandated in the Affordable Care Act.

These inadequate policies are the equivalent of legalized robbery. I know, it happened to me, and I can work up a real anger every time I am reminded of it. After years of monthly premiums, the one and only time I needed my insurance, I found out I effectively had no insurance at all. And my first thought was: How can this be legal?

Thankfully, responsible elected representatives are stepping in to solve this. And Sen. Cory Gardner is “appalled” by it? Gardner calls it “unconscionable”? I call that disgusting. I call that politics over good government.

Carl Alexander,Fort Collins

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

I have a message for Colorado Insurance Commissioner Marguerite Salazar. I have great insurance with Kaiser Permanente and have had it for years through our company. Comparable plans through the state health exchange would cost me much more and significantly increase my deductibles. We looked at it closely with our insurance broker last year when the state threatened to cancel our insurance plan back then. The two people on our company plan, my mother at age 82 and myself at age 58, do not need coverage for pregnancy or maternity. There is nothing better about a plan through the exchange for us.

Just because the state needs funding for its exchange is not a valid reason to make me and my mother join. I am not interested in helping the exchange, just providing excellent health coverage for those who concern me.

Steven Smith,Denver

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

I am so grateful to witness the growing consciousness of the rights of animals, and thanks to Natalie Prosin for a sensitive article about the horrors endured by circus elephants. Whatever one wants to call them, animals are living, feeling beings.

One only need to remember that there was a time when women were considered property (still a fact in parts of the world), and people of a certain color “belonged” to an owner. At last, we are beginning to recognize that, like children, animals have rights, too. I’ve shuddered over the years at the treatment of animals by the movie industry, which has inflicted unspeakable cruelty upon horses in Westerns and “epics.”

Let’s continue to enjoy free animals in a natural habitat. And, as owner-guardians, let’s give our own pets the love and care that all family members deserve. Always report animal abuse; never tolerate it.

Anne Culver,Denver

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

Apparently the evil of the “elephant Conga line” is in the eye of the beholder. Where Natalie Prosin sees degradation to the dignity of elephants, I see inter-species communication and harmony, a moment of grace that runs deeper than performing tricks, down through the millennia, to the first human who befriended an elephant and asked him to help with the heavy lifting.

I believe it’s impossible to abuse and coerce a herd of elephants into performing, at liberty and in harmony, under the big top. That elephants are “cognitively complex and social” probably means these performers actively enjoy the appreciation of their audiences.

It seems wacky to me that Prosin and her “common law” mob believe they own a patent on how to love elephants, or that “common law” non-owners should claim totalitarian control over mankind’s relationship to the elephant.

Theresa Stephen,Lakewood

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

In the life of many projects, there comes a time when hard decisions must be made. The Veterans Affairs hospital in Aurora is one of these.

To be told that another $830 million will be needed to complete the work is an affront to common sense. And, given the track record of this hospital, there is no guarantee that even this amount of extra money will be enough.

The only sensible solution is to stop construction immediately, abandon the project and sell the existing land and structure to Children’s Hospital Colorado for $1 (assuming that they will take it).

Guy Wroble,Denver

This letter was published in the March 21 edition.

We owe America’s veterans the best possible medical care. Let’s roll the VA and Tricare into the Medicare system — without the deductibles and co-pays for vets — allowing them to seek the best possible medical and psychiatric care available in the communities where they live, while achieving cost efficiencies the VA is not delivering.

If you ask most folks on Medicare, it is — all things considered — a pretty good medical system, and it does a much better job with cost containment than the private sector, while allowing patients to seek care with private-sector medical professionals.

John W. Thomas,Fort Collins

This letter was published in the March 21 edition.

I propose that we enroll all veterans in the Cadillac health care plan that our elected officials enjoy at our expense. Veterans certainly have earned and deserve such exceptional care. We then could switch our elected officials to the VA system for their health care, and by doing so it would be fixed very quickly.

Seriously, the only apparent effective solution to me is to abolish the VA health care system altogether. It is absolutely obvious that the VA, like so many of our modern, progressive federal agencies, is broken beyond the point of salvage.

Our veterans truly deserve to receive the very best we have to offer, not the “rotten to the core” tragedy that the VA administration has become.

Shame on us all for ever allowing serving our veterans to degrade to such a place as this.

Chuck Lawson,Greenwood Village

This letter was published in the March 21 edition.

While all who have been involved in this fiasco (a complete and ignominious failure) are gnashing their teeth over how to build the new VA hospital, I think a more pertinent question is how are they going to operate and finance this behemoth?

Charles Connor,Highlands Ranch

This letter was published in the March 21 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Unfortunately, I did not attend the debate in the legislature on Senate Bill 177 on Wednesday night. However, I can?t help but question why the local city building inspectors who visit construction sites are not at least partially to blame for construction defects at past condominium buildings. Do they actually inspect the various phases of construction for potential sloppy work by contractors or substandard materials that will not stand the test of time?

As a Realtor and developer of two multi-unit developments in the Denver area, my experience is that the city inspectors seldom call out any defects by contractors of improper workmanship. The local municipalities all want their fees for the privilege of building in their cities, but I believe they are at least a part of the root of the problem.

Doug Day,Denver

This letter was published in the March 21 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

The recent talk about the Ski Train’s limited visits to Winter Park brings back great memories of when I was a young boy.

In the early 1970s my friends and I were too young to drive, so our parents would drop us off at Union Station to ride the Ski Train each weekend. The price of a train ticket was $4.50; the lift ticket was $4.50; and a bowl of chili, a Coke and a cheeseburger in the lodge were $4. For $13, a youngster could have a great time.

The two orange and black train cars had wooden bench seats and there was no heat at all, which made for an interesting ride. The ride through the Rockies and the Moffat Tunnel was unbelievable.

I hope that something can be figured out to permanently bring back the great venture of riding the ski train to create great memories for all. The Ski Train is truly a Colorado tradition and needs to continue.

Tony Cito, Arvada

This letter was published in the March 20 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Arturo Hernandez Garcia gets a visit from his family on Feb. 20. Garcia has been living in the basement of the First Unitarian Society of Denver since October 2014 in order to avoid deportation while he appeals to immigration authorities. (Patrick Traylor, The Denver Post)

For so many immigrant members of our community, there is no line for them to get in to legalize their status. For those who do have family members through whom they can apply for legal status, the wait times can be decades — such as is the case for Arturo Hernandez Garcia and his wife, Ana.

That is why I call on Colorado’s congressional delegation and the rest of Congress to enact just and humane immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship and keeps families together. It’s the system that’s broken, not the people.

Laura Dravenstott,Centennial

This letter was published in the March 20 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

I support Mimi McFaul’s column on state Senate Bill 129. Most parents settle their divorce amicably and create a family-specific plan which helps each parent preserve their relationship with the child. A small percentage of parents litigate and they often do so at great expense. These disputes involve lawyers and psychologists who try their best to resolve difficult conflicts. The process is arduous and some parents don’t get what they want. Changing our best interest of the child standards will not solve these intractable family problems and will make matters worse for those who do not need help. Democracy is messy business. Solving problems such as high-conflict divorce involves individualized solutions that will never be resolved by fiat. Blanket rules such as a 50/50 presumption of parenting time are simplistic attempts at justice doomed to fail.

Bill J. Fyfe,Denver

This letter was published in the March 20 edition.

Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...